Posted by oh, barf
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Why would anybody want to pay $32.78 to see this anti-semetic, poor excuse for a leader? And what could he possibly have to say in his book that has any redeeming insight? He nearly destroyed this country both financially and internationally. Although I must say, he is starting to look like a genius, compared to what we have now. Oh, barf!!

If this doesn't get censored, I can't wait to hear the irrational rebuttals to this posting.

Barf, I don't mind that the Almanac is giving you a platform for your opinion, but is this supposed to be political commentary? Social commentary? Thoughtful commentary? It seems more like hurling to me.

Unless you articulate a reasoned position as to why Jimmy Carter is worthy of such contempt, I'm afraid your barf is bigger than your bite.

Posted by oh, barf
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2010 at 3:13 pm

HazMat Alert--My brief reference to the legacy of his administration is my basis for the spewed contempt. To go into detail in this forum would only take up more bandwidth than is probably available. Besides, people like to read short, concise statements, and don't normally read long, dragged out essays in a comment posting. Suffice it to say that, as a businessman in the late '70s, I witnessed first hand, and was a victim of, the +-22% prime rate, the collapse of industry in this country, and how he single handedly made the US the laughing stock of the world, while the annoying little gnats in the middle east brought us to our knees with at least 2 oil embargoes. It was all as result of the wimp factor that he created, and nobody feared retribution any more. Bottom line to all this is we couldn't build anything, couldn't finance anything, and didn't fight back when our foreign service people were being attacked, bombed, kidnapped, and captured. Not soldiers, but civilians. The irony of all this is, at least he screwed thing up on his own volition. The guy we have now is just a sock puppet of every foreign leader, and many of our own lawmakers, who wants to drag us down to their level of incompetence and failure.

Well, you asked. If this sounds like I am hurling, it's because I am getting very close to that. There is a much longer version to this, but I don't have the time to write it, nor will most of the readers read it.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Good lord, [portion removed; attacks on other posters violate terms of use.] I know it would start when I saw the announcement, but "barf" take the cake.

Sorry for that picture. ;-)

So much vitriol being spewed. Let's just ask "barf" about which president's he's getting confused with.

"It was all as result of the wimp factor that he created, and nobody feared retribution any more. ... and didn't fight back when our foreign service people were being attacked, bombed, kidnapped, and captured."

It was Reagan that turned tail and withdrew from Beruit after a car bomb killed 240 marines.

If you want to talk in bumperstickers, rather than the nuance that is history, at least try not to point out things apply to GOP presidents as well. And talking about post-war 70's economy is fine, as long as you're evenhanded in pointing out the president that put us into this current recession, the worst since the first republican great depression.

So barfy, given the disaster in Iran/Afghanistan, and this recession and all, are you going to say your hatred of Carter is equal to your hatred of Bush?

O-B, I don't agree with much of your interpretation of 1970s U.S. history, but thank you for at least stating your argument. The '70s were tough times, and I think Carter mishandled a number of things. But compared with the greed-is-good, wild-wild-West era ushered in by his immediate successor, the '70s don't look quite so bad, in hindsight.

Given your comment about his being anti-Semitic, I'm fairly certain you'd disagree with my very strong opinion that Mr. Carter, decades after his presidency, is a shining light in the world, standing bravely for peace and human decency and respect for others. I greatly admire him, and believe his Nobel peace prize was more than deserved.

Posted by oh, barf
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 pm

anonymous--I don't recall claiming hatred for anybody, just nausea. Carter is the one putting a price tag on his appearance, not Bush. Carter was President while our embassy was held hostage for 444 days. Remember Reagan's inauguration? The hostages were released at the exact same time he was inaugurated. The networks even had a split screen, to show both the inauguration and the release simultaneously. Just the reputation that Reagan had as a no BS guy was enough for those desert punks to decide that it was time to let our citizens go. Carter demonstrated he was a wimp, but they somehow thought Reagan was ready to nuke them.

H-M Alert--We can debate all day about what and who started the "recession", but selling out businesses and the American entrepeneur, while pandering to unions and Socialist countries, and mortgaging my grandchildren's future, does not justify a smug and misguided retort.

The book recounts his thoughts written in diaries he kept while in the oval office so I think it should be interesting reading regardless of how people felt about whether his administration was a success or failure.

Is it just me or does it always seem as though the conservative posters have a tough time controlling their anger on any issue that differs from their own? I certainly hope O-B's grandchildren stay off grandpa's lawn.

Posted by oh, barf
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Is it just me, or does it always seem as though the liberal posters have a tough time controlling their indignity whenever somebody's opinion differs from their own. Why is it that, any time they hear a dissenting opinion, they use the "hate" and "anger" cards? How insecure. But I'm not surprised. That's why I indicated, in my initial posting, my eagerness to hear just what I am now hearing. It was so predictable.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Barf:

"Remember Reagan's inauguration? The hostages were released at the exact same time he was inaugurated. ... Just the reputation that Reagan had as a no BS guy was enough for those desert punks to decide that it was time to let our citizens go."

Are you kidding?!? Aren't you forgetting what came out about why that happened? That well managed traitorous, odd coincidence?

Reagan gave weapons to Iran. How patriotic! You remember Ollie North, the convicted felon? North, who had the nerve to stand up in the uniform of our great nation, take an oath, and then lie. I have NEVER understood how righties can accept that behavior, under oath, and in uniform.

Yeah, Ronnie was a piece of work in the mideast between giving missiles to IRAN, along with running out of Beirut after our Marines are murdered.

Then Ronnie lied, in that folksy tone y'all loved ("...in my heart, I know I didn't do it, but I guess those pesky facts show otherwise, oh well, there ya go again....")

"We can debate all day about what and who started the "recession"...."

No, *we* can't. *You* can debate all day, but among the reality based community, there is no debate. It was clearly Bush and his policies. Look at the job losses by month for the decade (and recall during Clinton, America added 23 million jobs.) Bush started TARP. Look at GDP under Bush. Re-writing Bush and Reagan history is a trendy rightie thing, interrupted only by facts. Funny that.

Only McCain said the economy was fine, although his advisor, Phil Gramm, said we were a nation of whiners. Go back and look at the headlines in Sept. 2008.

That was about the only thing McCain could say to lose to Obama. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Wow, did he ever screw up. Mr. Maverick, beat by 8 points, by a novice politician, of color. How hard was that to do?

Amazing American history as it is. You don't need to rewrite it. Though I agree with your last post - it is predictable.

Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm

HEY (yeah, I'm yelling), lay off attacking the poster. How about either acknowledging his/her statement of facts, or arguing that the facts are wrong! Iran did hold our people hostage for 444 damn days, and they did let them go as soon as the administration changed. The prime rate did reach +/-22, and I did have to sit in gas lines on "odd days" to match the number on my license plate due to the oil embargos. Every administration, republican or democrat, has always claimed to have inherited any BS problems, and taken credit for any serendipidous happenings. Intelligent people, in both parties, are open minded enough to admit that. Oh, Barf (please change your handle, bud) I applaud your willingness to take the position, and agree with most of it. One last comment, why is it on this forum, no one can criticize or otherwise disagree with President Obama without being accused of HATING the man. Hate is a terrible word, and a terrible emotion. I disagree with him alot, but on the emotional side of things, pretty much neutral there.

Regarding the release of hostages after Reagan's inauguration: Anyone remember the very strong evidence that came out much later that the Reagan team, including William Casey and George H.W. Bush, made a deal with Iran to sell them weapons if officials released the hostages? This is now referred to as the October Surprise, and information about it came from several Reagan administration and/or military personnel who were in positions to know.

I don't know how anyone could think Iran would decide to release hostages after more than 400 days because they feared the person who was just installed in office just minutes before. Doesn't it sound just a wee bit suspicious? Consider history, consider Iran's contempt for the US, consider logic and human nature. This was a dirty deal, and it's obvious whose hand are dirty.

Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm

Memory Jolt - thank you very much for getting back to a stimulating dialog. I personally don't have the depth of knowledge I'd like on the release of the hostages, but you post has inspired me to do some research and become more enlightened. Sounds interesting.

Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Oct 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm

This thread only proves that if you lean left, you'll find every reason to support your bias that the right can do no right... and vice versa. I see very little difference between Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity.

But POGO, you've just reduced the issue to left bias/right bias. It surprises me, because you're so often the voice of logic, of the "big picture."

Were the military folks and Reagan administration staff who came forward with the information leftists? Isn't there room, in the search for historical truth (or at least an honest attempt at interpretation) for insisting on looking behind the curtain without being labeled a biased idealogue?

I am just as supportive of efforts to shine the light on the Obama administration's behind-the-scenes foreign policy deal-making. Does that make me a right-winger?

Posted by oh, barf
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Whew! Thanks for being there, WhoRUpeople. I thought I was going to be the Lone Ranger through all this.

Interesting to see what happens when so many of you embellish a simple statement, such as the one I made about the hostage release. My statement that Carter is a wimp is true, as is the fact that the hostages were released simultaneous to reagan's inauguration. Factually true. Didn't call him a hero, nor did I try to rewrite history, nor try to explain what led up to all that. In fact, every single post took off in the direction of the mindset of the poster. And that's OK. It's to be expected. But I go back to my original post of yesterday: Carter is the only one putting a price tag on the "privelege" of seeing him. The only thing more pathetic than that are the people that actually pay the price. It's not enough that you are willing to invest your time to show up there.

Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Oct 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm

memory jolt -

Not my intention, I assure you.

With reference to hostages and deficits, the left cannot deny that the hostages were released under Reagan and the right cannot deny that the economy thrived under Clinton. Trying to discount the accomplishments only reveals their bias.

The right cannot bear to concede any good deeds by Obama or Clinton and the left can't seem to concede anything good came from Reagan or Bush.

The notion that presidents are responsible for the economy is suspect, in my opinion.

Clinton was lucky to have Silicon Valley at his back during its boom years. Bush II was unlucky that Silicon Valley peaked as he came in.

I don't know who exactly started the outsourcing ball rolling, but Clinton was instrumental with NAFTA. None of them. Reagan, Clinton, Bush II or Obama served in the military.

My sense is that none of them really understand, in their bones, patriotism with a small p, the natural kind that comes from having served in the military and they're somewhat flummoxed in dealing with the military.

In my opinion, these four presidents have been too ready to do what the titans of industry and Wall Street want, and that bunch is decidedly not patriotic. They go where they can make the most money, by and large.

What is left of our economy? Banking? Investing? Real estate? The flag should be, and is not, sufficiently shown upside down.

Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:32 pm

"The notion that presidents are responsible for the economy is suspect, in my opinion."

Correct. Just like a football coach or CEO, presidents get too much credit for success and too much blame for failure. There are so many other factors... but that's the game, my friend.

Clinton also had the good luck of not having to fight a major war (even one by choice). That reduced military spending was a very fortunate element in his budget. Bush had the good luck of a strong tailwind and strong economy which came crashing down in September 2001, less than a year after he took office. I disagree with many of Obama's policies, but that doesn't minimize the fact that he has faced the worst headwinds of any president in recent history.

And I don't doubt the patriotism of any of our presidents... or yours, for that matter.

Posted by Sharon
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm

$32 is a good deal as you get his book signed and delivered for the price and meet a POTUS
--a MUCH better deal than we peasants in Palo Alto got last week
---$30,400 to meet a POTUS.

Most Americans are sick and tired of foreign lobby groups like AIPAC and CAIR throwing accusations of antisemitism and Islamaphobia at people they do not like
--- as a result of such promiscuous misuse both terms have lost all meaning

Both AIPAC and CAIR should register as agents of alien governments and stop trying to manipulate US foreign and domestic matters, it is time to put American and Americans Interest First again.

Why is AIPAC so frantically lobbying for the release of the traitor and spy Jonathan Pollard? he endangered the lives of millions of Americans and led to the torturer and death of 100s of our agents in the USSR

Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 26, 2010 at 6:38 pm

I'm sorry Joe, but I disagree with you. I think I have patriotism with a small p and I didn't serve in the military. I didn't because I graduated from high school in the late 70's, shortly after Vietnam. It was a different time and the attitude toward the military was different. I still get choked up at the National Anthem and God Bless America and numerous other things that are patriotic. I did serve in law enforcement, but bottom line, I think you paint with too broad a brush when you say those that did not serve in the military are not patriotic.

Posted by Sharon
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 7:27 pm

Patriotism with a big P or small p are good--- we need to get rid of the non-p lobbyists like CAIR and AIPAC
--- they represent alien countries interests--
not American interests.

We need to curb them, tax them heavily and register them as foreign agents.
General Petraeus has made it very clear that these foreign agents endanger the lives or our troops in the Mid East, undermine US best interest in the region and harm our battle against terrorist.
Enough is enough

Maybe I overstated what I was trying to say. Patriotism may have nothing to do with presidential kowtowing to corporations, which is my real complaint.

JFK and Harry Truman had some nasty words about big business. They confronted them. So did Eisenhower in very unambiguous terms. That took courage. Where is it from the president these days? When have they stood up for the rest of us when it really mattered?

What happened to the public option? What happened to the promises to rein in Wall Street? What about the Bill Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened the flood gates for people like Rupert Murdoch? What about Clinton's capitulation on Glass-Steagall allowing the banks to get out from under their restrictions? Where was Reagan in his support for eliminating the the fairness doctrine to require balanced coverage from broadcasters? Where is any evidence WHATSOVER of Obama rolling back the Patriot Act abuses of his predecessor? Why did Obama back off from his eloquent support for the Islamic center in lower Manhattan?

I remember when Ross Perot had his EDS employees kidnapped in Iran and he went to Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance for help. They told him to pound sand! So Ross Perot said that he would rescue them himself. Carter threatened to place Ross Perot under arrest. Perot dared Carter to do it because that would create the worst public relations nightmare for Carter. Carter backed down and Perot made a successful rescue.

Also, for all you liberal women Jimmy Carter made a pact with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to ensure that no foreign aid would be given for contraception. I am not talking about abortion, I am talking about contraception.

I have a good Democrat friend who worked in the West Wing under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and she loathed Jimmy Carter for his pact with the Catholic Church